DOCTORAL PROGRAMS FOR CURRICULUM PRACTfT ONERS: BEFORE AND SINCE 1969

Transcription

1 DOCTORAL PROGRAMS FOR CURRICULUM PRACTfT ONERS: BEFORE AND SINCE n IN RECENT years there has been a growing interest in the nature of doctoral programs designed to prepare curriculum specialists to work in the schools. This con cern is reflected in the support of a working group on "Certification of Curriculum Work ers" by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. One task of the ASCD group has been to identify the com petencies curriculum workers should pursue during their graduate education. The professional literature also reveals considerable interest among educators in identifying the experiences, training, and competencies which ought to be included in the graduate preparation of curriculum spe cialists. Eisele and Wootton, for exi.;nple, James E. Eisele and Lutian R. Wootton. "Educating the Curriculum Specialist." Educational Leadership (): -; October. May have identified four functions of the cur riculum specialist and listed the skills neces sary to perform these functions effectively. Other authors, such as Hamm and Walker,- have made recommendations concerning the revision of university preparation programs for curriculum specialists. A review of the literature since discloses a growing number of articles similar to those noted here. In addition, a limited number of studies have been conducted to determine the nature of doctoral programs for curriculum special ists and what experts believe should be stressed in such programs. Two of these studies seem particularly noteworthy. The first, conducted by Woods, compared the Russell L. Hamm and William L. Walker. "Preparation of Curriculum Workers." Educational Leadership 8 (): 8-, October. Bob G. Woods. "The Preparation of Curricu lum Specialists: An Analysis of the Opinions of Supervisors and Professors." The Journal of Teacher Education : 8-; Winter. *Fred H. Wood. Professor of Education, Uni versity of Nebraska, Lincoln; and Bob p. Woods, Dean, College of Education, University of Mis souri, Columbia

2 opinions of curriculum practitioners with those of curriculum professors concerning the importance of including certain areas of study in the graduate programs of curricu lum specialists. The second, by Sturges, was conducted to determine the nature of doc toral programs for curriculum directors in institutions accredited by the National Coun cil for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). While there were data concerning the doctoral programs at NCATE colleges and universities and the opinions of practitioners and curriculum professors, there was a paucity of research about doctoral programs completed by curriculum practitioners work ing in the public schools. The purpose of the study reported here was to determine the nature of doctoral programs completed by curriculum practitioners since and to compare the emphasis given in those pro grams with programs completed prior to. More specifically, this study was de signed to provide answers to the following questions:. What has been the nature of doc toral programs completed since by cur riculum practitioners?. Are there differences in the empha sis given to the study of various professional education and behavioral science areas in doctoral programs completed by curriculum practitioners prior to and since?. What professional education and behavioral science areas did curriculum prac titioners believe had been most helpful since completing their doctorate and entering the present job?. What areas of study did curriculum practitioners believe should be included in their doctoral program in addition to those areas examined directly by the questionnaire employed? A. W. Sturges. "Doctoral Programs for Cur riculum Directors." Unpublished monograph,. In April, a questionnaire was mailed to superintendents in school dis tricts with at least one North Central Asso ciation (NCA) accredited high school that enrolled at least, students in grades ten through twelve or, students in grades nine through twelve. This list of superin tendents was obtained from the official roster of the NCA accredited high schools. These superintendents were asked to forward the questionnaire to a member of their staff who had earned a doctoral degree and held a position focusing on curriculum and instructional improvement. A total of 8 curriculum specialists completed useable questionnaires, of which 8 received their doctorates prior to and since. An additional returned questionnaires were marked to indicate that the district did not have a curriculum specialist with an earned doctorate. Most of the districts com prising the percent that did not return the instrument also probably did not have a curriculum specialist with an earned doctorate. The completed questionnaires provided data concerning teaching and administrative experiences of curriculum practitioners prior to completing their doctorate and the em phasis given to the study of specific areas of professional education and behavioral sci ences in the doctoral programs completed by the respondents. With two exceptions, this instrument was identical to the one used in Woods' study reported earlier. The first difference was that the respondents in this study were asked to indicate whether the areas of study were given "heavy," "moderate," "limited," or "no" emphasis in their doctoral program; the Woods study asked respondents to report the degree to which these same areas of study should be stressed in doctoral programs for curriculum specialists. The other difference was that the questionnaire used in the study Maurice M. McGlasson. "Proceedings of the Commission on Schools." The North Central Asso ciation Quarterly : -; Summer. 8 Educational Leadership

3 reported here asked two additional openended questions which dealt with (a) the areas of study which had been most helpful to the curriculum specialists since entering their present positions and (b) the areas of study the curriculum practitioners believed should have been part of their doctoral program. Table presents the proportion of re spondents completing their doctorates since who indicated "heavy," "moderate," "limited," or "no" emphasis was given in their graduate program to the study of areas of professional education. The areas of profes sional study which were emphasized (heavy and moderate ratings) in most programs were the supervision of instruction, organi zation and administration of public schools, and processes of curriculum development and improvement; all three are crucial for curriculum specialists working in the public schools. In addition, over one-half of the curriculum practitioners reported that their graduate programs placed "heavy" or "mod erate" emphasis on the study of child and/or adolescent psychology, educational issues and trends, learning theory, educational measure ment and evaluation, curriculum theory, and curricular trends present and future. The areas most often omitted from programs completed since were the study of research pertaining to curriculum and in struction, educational problems of rural disadvantaged youth and urban disadvantaged youth, interaction analysis techniques, pro grammed instruction, and advanced study of instructional methods in two or more disci plines. Over percent of the respondents reported these areas were not part of their graduate training. Eighty-three percent of the curriculum practitioners who had completed their gradu ate work since reported they were re quired to take work in the behavioral sciences. The data displayed in Table show the de gree to which these respondents indicated areas of behavioral science study were emphasized in their doctoral programs. At least one-third of all respondents who re ceived their degrees since indicated heavy or moderate emphasis was given to the study of leadership behavior, social psy chology, and the psychology of personal ad justment; approximately one-fourth stated that the study of public opinion and com munication, group dynamics and role theory, and contemporary social problems were also given this level of emphasis. On the other hand, percent or more of the graduate programs completed since did not in clude the study of the American Negro, cultures of rural and/or urban disadvantaged groups, sensitivity training, racial and cul tural relations, general anthropology, and contemporary economics. A comparison of the responses by cur riculum specialists completing their degrees prior to and since using tests of chi square revealed only three differences that were statistically significant. Those com pleting their degrees since were sig nificantly more likely to have the study of test construction (. level) stressed in their graduate program and significantly less likely to have the study of educational measure ments and evaluation (. level) and the educational problems of urban disadvantaged youth (. level) stressed (Table ). None of the behavioral science study areas were stressed significantly more or less in pro grams completed since (Table ). There were, however, several other dif ferences in the professional education areas presented in Table which suggest that pro grams completed from through placed more emphasis on the study of supervision of instruction, the process of curriculum development and improvement, curriculum theory, selection of visual mate rials, advanced study of general instructional methods in one discipline, and statistics. Less emphasis seemed to be given since, than in doctoral programs completed prior to May

4 Professional Areas Learning theory Child and/or adolescent psychology Educational measurement and evaluation Test construction History of education Comparative education Philosophy of education Sociology of education Education problems of urban disadvantaged youth youth Educational issues and trends Organization and administration of public schools Supervision of instruction Historical overview of curricular trends Processes of curriculum development and improvement Curriculum theory Curricular trends present and future Formulation of teaching objectives Advanced study of general instructional methods in one discipline Advanced study of instructional methods in fwo or more disciplines Theory of instruction Techniques of analyzing teaching behavior Interaction analysis techniques Selection and utilization of instructional materials and media Preparation of visual materials Programmed instruction Elementary educational statistics Advanced educational statistics Design of research studies in curriculum and instruction Planning and conducting school surveys Methods of evaluating instructional programs Critique of research on curriculum and instruction * A rating of indicated heavy emphasis;, " Statistically significant at the. level. Prior to * moderate eniphasis; 8 After , limited eimphasis; and. no 8 8 emphasis. Chi Square.. 8." 8" " Table. Percent of Curriculum Practitioners Who Had Earned a Doctorate Prior to and Since Indicating Different Degrees of Emphasis Given in Their Graduate Program to Specific Areas of Professional Education Areas of Behavior Sciences General anthropology Survey of contemporary economics Communication theory Nature of inquiry Sensitivity training Political organization of urban communities Psychology of personal adjustment Social psychology Social psychology methods Group dynamics and role theory Leadership behavior Cultures of urban disadvantaged groups Cultures of rural disadvantaged groups Contemporary social problems Public opinion and communications Social organization Racial and cultural relations The American Negro " A rating of indicated heavy emphasis; " Statistically significant at.8 level. Prior to ' 8, moderate eniphasis; 8 After 8. lirtiited emphasis; and, no emphasis. Chi Square " Table. Percent of Curriculum Practitioners Who Had Earned a Doctorate Prior to and Since Indicating Different Degrees of Emphasis Given in Their Graduate Program to Specific Areas of the Behavioral Sciences Educational Leadership

5 that date, to educational issues and trends, specific techniques of analyzing teaching be haviors, and reviewing and critiquing re search on curriculum and instruction. Only three areas of study in the be havioral sciences showed any substantial change from pre- responses to those of the -and-after group. Although the evi dence does not show a statistically significant difference, doctoral programs have placed less emphasis on the study of leadership behavior, cultures of urban disadvantaged groups, and racial cultural relations since. When the respondents were asked to identify the areas of the behavioral sciences and professional education that had been most helpful in their present position, the responses for those completing their degrees prior to and since were quite similar. The four areas of professional study men tioned most frequently by both groups were the processes of curriculum development and improvement, supervision of instruction, organization and administration of public schools, and learning theory. Over one-third of the curriculum specialists in both cate gories believed these areas had been helpful. All four of these study areas received heavy emphasis in the graduate programs com pleted both before and since (Table ). The behavioral science areas that were reported as being most helpful by both groups were, in rank order, leadership be havior, group dynamics and role theory, communications theory, and public opinion and communications. As noted earlier, all but communications theory were given heavy or moderate emphasis in the programs com pleted since ; prior to these areas were all emphasized in at least one-fourth of all the doctoral programs completed by the curriculum practitioners (Table ). Ninety-eight of the curriculum prac titioners who participated in this study indi cated additional study areas they believed should have been part of their doctoral pro grams. The wide variety of areas identified were categorized as follows: Number of Respondents Prior to Since Category All Administration Behavioral Sciences Curriculum Development Evaluation Internships In-service Research Change Process Federal Programs & Funding The additional areas of study most fre quently mentioned by those completing their degrees prior to and since were directly related to topics traditionally considered as part of educational administration, the be havioral sciences, and curriculum develop ment. The areas of educational administration reported most often were, in rank order, public school finance and budgeting; sys tematic management techniques such as management by objectives; public and com munity relations; personnel and professional negotiations; and accountability and school law. Under the category of behavioral sci ence, the specific area which dominated the responses was the study of how to work effectively with small groups. Other areas of behavioral science study that were suggested two or more times were modern economics, the school as a social system, coping with a bureaucracy, behaviorism, humanism, and learning disabilities. Areas of curriculum development which practitioners believed should have been part of their graduate study were related to spe cific methods of planning and managing curriculum development projects, designing and implementing models, systems theory and management, and procedures for involv ing the lay public in curriculum development. In comparing the responses of those who completed their doctorate since May

6 with those completing their degree earlier, few differences were noted. Based upon these findings, it appears that the following conclusions can be drawn about the doctoral programs completed by curriculum practitioners in school districts with at least one North Central Association accredited high school: Doctoral programs completed by cur riculum practitioners since place most emphasis on areas of study in professional education, especially on those areas related to curriculum development, supervision of instruction, and learning. The study of the behavioral science areas has received lim ited emphasis. The study of disadvantaged youth, mi nority groups, and modern economics all related to pressing issues in our society has not been emphasized in doctoral pro grams designed for curriculum practitioners since. There is a trend for current doctoral programs designed for curriculum specialists since to place more emphasis on the study of test construction, instruction, super vision, curriculum development and theory, instructional methodology, and statistics, and less emphasis on the study of techniques of analyzing teaching behavior, critiquing research on curriculum and instruction, lead ership behavior, and disadvantaged urban youth. Since the internship is being used less as a learning experience in doctoral programs for curriculum specialists. The areas of study most helpful to cur riculum specialists in their present positions are those areas which received greatest em phasis in their graduate training. Practitioners believe that doctoral pro grams designed to prepare curriculum spe cialists to work in the public schools should place more emphasis on the study of educa tional administration and the behavioral sciences. The results of this study raise a number of questions for those involved in planning and teaching in doctoral programs designed to prepare curriculum practitioners. For example, if we believe the curriculum spe cialists in larger school districts, such as those represented in this study, need to under stand and be able to deal with the major issues that face this country and the com munities in which they work, is there not a need to place more emphasis in their gradu ate programs on the study of such areas as the culture and problems of black Americans, race relations and intercultural adjustment, disadvantaged youth in rural and urban set tings, and modern economics? If we believe that students learn best when they are ac tively involved and have an opportunity to learn through actual experiences, should not an internship with a curriculum practitioner be part of more doctoral programs? If cur riculum specialists believe that more empha sis should be placed on the study of educational administration in their prepara tion to serve as curriculum specialists in the public schools, should not more graduate programs emphasize the study of such areas as educational finance, public relations, man agement techniques, and school law? These and other similar questions which emerge from the data reported here suggest that there are several areas of study that might be added to doctoral programs for curriculum practitioners, programs that al ready are very demanding, time consuming, and costly. Thus, any changes in these pro grams will probably demand that either ex isting courses be modified to include different content and goals or that some courses that are presently part of programs will need to be dropped and others added. The decisions concerning what changes need to be made in advanced graduate programs for preparing curriculum practitioners is vitally important to the improvement of ele mentary and secondary schools and need to be based on the best evidence available. Most practitioners and professors of curriculum and instruction will agree that more evidence is needed. n Educational Leadership